Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 May 1939

Vol. 76 No. 1

Treason Bill, 1939—From the Seanad. - Tourist Traffic Bill, 1938—Committee (resumed—Section 10).

Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: That Section 11 stand part of the Bill.

On Section 11, can the Minister give us any information as to the number of officers to be appointed?

I could not give any indication at this stage. Of course, a number of officers will be engaged in connection with the registration of hotels and so on, but the numbers engaged will depend to a large extent on the development of the board's other activities.

The Minister must realise that we are giving, in effect, a blank cheque for £20,000 to this board for administration purposes; and he must have had, from some source or another, some estimate of the requirements. Can he give us any idea now as to what will be the remuneration of the board itself—the four members and the chairman?

No decision has been made on the matter.

And no estimate has been made?

The matter of the remuneration of the board has not been considered.

No, but the type and size of the staff has been considered.

I have given a rough estimate, but that is all I could give.

The Minister does not know what it will be?

I gave a rough estimate, and I emphasised the fact that it was only a rough estimate.

Well, a time will come, when the Minister gets this Bill through, when he will have to make up his mind as to what the expenses will be. I am not so much concerned with the question of the remuneration of the members of the board itself. I am more concerned with the question of what staff will be appointed.

We are giving to the board the duty of appointing whatever staff the board will require, but the board will have to do that within the limits of its financial resources.

Will not the sum of £20,000 cover the remuneration of the board and the staff?

Yes, and more.

Therefore, the time must come when the Minister must make up his mind as to how much of the £20,000 will be eaten into in that way. Will he be in a better position to tell us how much it will amount to then, than he is now? What factors would the Minister have to guide him then that he has not before him now?

None at all, except, as I say, that the matter has not been considered. That is a matter that has got to be considered, and it has got to be considered in consultation with the Minister for Finance.

Can I ask the Minister, in connection with sub-section (3) of this section, whether that sub-section is necessary, or whether the Local Appointments Commissioners could not operate in this way on request, if so desired? Take the case of a local authority which requires certain officials. It is bound to apply to the Local Appointments Commission for them. Here is a case in which you set up a board and, presumably, give very considerable fees to the members of that board. At the same time, we are allowing them a privilege which is not granted to a local authority. Can the Minister tell the House what is the reason for making an exception in this case as against a local authority?

Because this is not a local authority. This is a business undertaking which has got to be run upon the same general lines as any other business undertaking. Precisely the same consideration has influenced the form of this section as determined the insertion of a similar section in the Act establishing the Electricity Supply Board. Precisely the same section was inserted in the measure setting up the Electricity Supply Board. This section gives to the board the same right which the Electricity Supply Board have to fill their posts through the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission if they choose to do so but it does not impose upon them a statutory obligation to do so. There may be certain types of staff which could be more suitably chosen by the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission, but there are other types of staff in which the judgement of the board as regards individual personality would be of importance.

It might have been a good thing if this had been provided for in the early stages of the E.S.B. That was a manufacturing business. This is not. There is a difference. This may be a useful institution or it may be one of the Government's mistakes, of which there are many. In so far as its usefulness is concerned, it is quite possible that, from a Selection Board, you will get as suitable a person as would be chosen by the Minister or by this board. Presumably, the Minister has in mind the appointment of some member of the board. Is that person, whoever he is, experienced in business? Does the Minister think that his experience, in whatever business he is engaged in, qualifies him for this particular task? It appears to me strange that the Government should provide for appointment in this way since the Government itself is limited in the selection of its officials by an Act of Parliament. It has to get them through a particular channel. This, I presume, will be an expert institution. The board will have to do expert work. It is quite possible that those already engaged in the tourist industry would make as good a selection, as a board, as any other body but the House is concerned with the fact that it is committed to an expenditure of practically £20,000 each year. It may be less but, presumably, there is nothing to prevent its being more except a Vote. I should like to know whether, after 12 years, we cannot improve upon the phraseology embodied in a Bill passed in this House.

It is not a question of improving the phraseology. Certain principles must apply in matters of this kind. When you set up a board to run a business undertaking— whether it is a manufacturing undertaking or has to do with tourist development matters little—it seems to me that you must give to that board the same authority over its staff and the same power in relation to its staff that a business concern would have. When it is a matter of appointing subordinate staff, this board of the E.S.B. might find it convenient to avail of the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission. If they wish to do so, they are empowered to do so but, in relation to the more important members of the staff, I think the experience of the E.S.B. has been that it is in a better position to select these officers than any other authority would be. It helps the discipline and efficiency of the organisation to have these appointments made by the board and I think the same thing will be found in the case of the Tourist Board.

There is a difference between this board and the Electricity Supply Board. The Electricity Supply Board was set up as a semi-public body and it paid back any money it got from the State. This body which we propose now to set up is financed under Section 15 and under Section 16 out of funds supplied by the State. It must be agreed that it would not be desirable to withdraw from the executive officers of this body—the tourist development board—the right to dismiss officials who were not equal to the tasks imposed upon them. But we are quite entitled, without unduly restricting the discretion of the executive, to require them to employ their staff in accordance with certain procedure. There is no use in putting your cap or coat upon it. The important thing here is that the tourist development board should not be made a refuge of jobbery. The moment this board is constituted, every camp follower of the Fianna Fáil Party will be clamouring for employment under it. The Minister himself knows that he himself will be besieged by applicants for jobs under this board.

They will be wasting their time. I shall have nothing to do with them.

That statement will be taken for what it is worth. Whether or not the Minister has anything to do with the board, under the law, he knows that he will be approached by thousands of people to use his influence with the board to get them jobs. Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party will be similarly approached to get them jobs under this board. There is no use in anybody closing his eyes to that fact because it is common knowledge to us all that every public man is besieged by people looking for jobs. It is natural that the Government Deputies, and Minister particularly, should be more besieged than any other Deputies.

The same was true of local authorities. When a position fell vacant, hundreds of obviously inelligible persons clamoured for the vacancy and pressed personal considerations why they should get it. There were widows, indigent persons, persons who had done good service in the past and people with a hundred excellent personal arguments to advance to show why their claims to the position should be preferred to that of anybody else. It was very often necessary, in the best interests of the local authority—and will often be necessary in the best interests of the tourist development board—to take somebody who had no claim ad misericordiam at all—to get a highly efficient person who was possibly in a very good job. That is the kind of person the board might be under a duty to appoint. There would be a dozen applicants who would have a strong case in compassion to get the appointment. The only way in which this board can be protected from irresistible pressure is to take these appointments completely out of their hands and put them in the hands of either the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commissioners.

That is common knowledge to us all. Fianna Fáil have their own experience. When they came into office, six years ago, they said they were going to restore to the local authorities their autonomy by requiring the Appointments Commissioners to send down three names instead of one. That reform lasted for exactly three months because they discovered that giving back the discretion to the local authorities to choose between three persons for one job gave rise to all the old, poisonous abuses that the Appointments Commissioners abolished. Everybody who has any knowledge of the working of local authorities in rural Ireland at the present time admits that one of the most valuable reforms that was introduced into this State was the institution of the Appointments Commissioners. Everyone in this House is aware that in certain semi-public institutions that have been established without the intervention of the Appointments Commissioners very grave dissatisfaction has existed as a result of appointments which did not appear to be made exclusively on the merits, appointments which it was felt were affected by political influence. Here is an opportunity to lift off the shoulders of the members of this board the loathsome task of filling jobs which will have to be filled under the board.

If the Appointments Commissioners should put forward a person who is wholly unsuitable—and that is an unlikely contingency—there is no suggestion that the discretion of the board should be limited in disposing of that individual and dismissing him, for reasons stated, if he was wholly incompetent to do his job. No such case that I am aware of has arisen in connection with the Local Appointments Commissioners or the Civil Service Commissioners since they were instituted 14 years ago. Why should we apprehend that such cases will now arise? If we extend the functions of the Appointments Commissioners to this board, there is not the least use in saying to this board that, where they think it desirable, they may refer the case to the Appointments Commissioners, because that does not protect them in the least degree from external pressure. I know, because if the local authorities have certain minor appointments which they may send to the Appointments Commissioners or which they may fill themselves, canvassing is merely subdivided into two stages. At first there is a general barrage from all sides not to send the appointment to the Appointments Commissioners. They all say, "Bring it into the arena and then we can all go down into the arena and, in blood and dust, battle for our respective candidates." Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Republican and everybody else link arms to bring pressure to bear on the local authorities not to send it to the Appointments Commissioners. Once united, they will achieve that objective and get the appointment restored to the arena of the local authority. Then they divide up into their various warring factions to bring influence to bear on the individual members of the Body to vote for their own particular candidate and you are back in just as rotten a situation as you were before the Appointments Commissioners were ever appointed.

Any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who is on a local authority will tell the Minister that you are asking this board to do an impossible thing if you ask them to send these appointments to the Appointments Commissioners if they are not compelled to do so. I have not the slightest doubt that no matter who the Minister nominates on the board they will be grateful to him if they are placed under statutory obligation to send all the appointments to the Appointments Commissioners. I am convinced that, unless he wants this board to be turned into a sink of patronage, he ought to impose a statutory obligation on the members of the board to refer all the minor appointments to the Local Appointments Commissioners or the Civil Service Commissioners, whichever he likes. I have not the slightest doubt that, far from resenting this limitation of their discretion, they will be most grateful to this House for protecting them from the usual kind of canvassing which it is the miserable fate of a member of a public body in the country at the present time to suffer whenever small appointments have to be made. Would the Minister consider an amendment on the Report Stage?

No. This is not a local authority. This is a business concern. There will be no political division on this board. Anyone who knows the first thing about the functions of the Local Appointments Commissioners or the running of a business concern would never make the suggestion.

This is a non-controversial matter. Let us assume that all members of the board are supporters of the Labour Party, apart from their membership of the board, and that it is known that Deputy Norton regards them as influential supporters of his, that he is in the habit of befriending them and having constant contact with them. Deputy Norton's supporters from Skerries will come to Deputy Norton and say, "You know the chairman of the board. He is a member of the Clontarf branch. Would you be good enough to go to that man and say to him that he ought to appoint John Dolan as medical inspector for Northeast Kerry?" To which Deputy Norton replies, "Certainly not. I will have nothing to do with it. That appointment will be made on its merits. I never interfere in public appointments." To which the Secretary of the Labour Party in Skerries will say, "Very well; when you want somebody to sit in the polling booth in Skerries at the next general election you can look elsewhere. I have been labouring for 40 years for the Labour Party in North Dublin and the first favour I ever asked is refused." That goes on and on and on. Thousands of similar appeals must have reached the Minister in his day. If the member of the board happens to be a friend and supporter of the Minister every Deputy of the Minister's Party living in the constituency where an influential person wants influence to be brought will come to the Minister and say, "It is all very well for you to be doing the `purist,' but this fellow commands 250 votes. If I cannot get this fellow's support on general election day I will not be able to get a single personating agent in that area. They are all Blue Shirts there. All I want you to do is to write a letter." The Minister must refuse loftily, stating that he never interferes in public appointments, which his own Deputies know is nonsense. The Minister has to say, "I do not care a fiddle-de-dee what happens to your constituents. I will not use my influence on behalf of your constituent's application." The Minister knows he cannot do that, that he will have to write a letter. If, on the other hand, the Minister can produce the Act of Parliament and say, "What can I do, the board has nothing to do with the appointment; it is going to the Appointments Commissioners, the members of which I do not know and will not know because they will not be appointed until the morning the appointment is made." Surely that would be a better position for everyone. It ought not to be necessary to go into all that. The Minister makes it necessary by pretending to deny it exists. There is no suggestion here that once the person is appointed the Tourist Board cannot dismiss him.

Can we appoint another person the next day?

No; refer the matter back to the Appointments Commissioners.

Does the Deputy know how long that would take?

If the procedure is cumbersome or archaic or inefficient——

It is completely unsuitable to a business concern. It is suitable only to a local authority.

So that sub-section (3) is all eyewash?

I say that, conceivably, this board, like the Electricity Supply Board, could say: "We want a certain grade of clerical officer. We know we want, on an average, ten or 12 a year"—this board would not be in that position, but the Electricity Supply Board would—and they can arrange for a competitive examination which would give them a list of applicants from which they could draw. But, when it comes to appointing persons to carry out responsible duties, neither the Electricity Supply Board nor the Tourist Board would think of filling the vacancies by this machinery. It would be most unsuitable and much too slow in operation. Apart from that, it is essential, if you are going to get efficiency, that the authority of the board over the staff should be unquestioned, that they should be able to dismiss a man to-day if he is unsuitable for his work and appoint another man in his place the next day.

Why appoint the other man the next day?

Because the work must go on. If it were given to the Local Appointments Commissioners it might take three or four months to get a substitute. That system would not work. We have heard a lot about Deputies being asked to influence appointments. Of course, they will be asked. Deputies are asked to influence appointments under the Hospitals Trust, the railways, and in a thousand and one privately owned concerns with which the Government has nothing to do. I am sure I get at least a dozen letters a day asking me to try to get employment for people in the Hospitals Trust. You have many more people writing asking you to try and get them employment on the railways and in similar organisations. Does that influence the efficiency of those concerns? Not in the least.

The Minister says that nobody must limit the discretion of the board to dismiss their employees and to control their staff. Nobody wants to. Let their discretion to control the staff that has been appointed be as absolute as you care to make it in order to get efficiency, but it is idle to pretend that in any business which is efficiently run, the dismissal of one officer, no matter who that officer may be, could or should disrupt the whole working of a business enterprise. If such a situation ever arose then the business enterprise is not being properly run. If the whole efficiency of the organisation has to depend on the permanency of one individual, then it is clear that the business should not be so organised.

The objection that the Minister takes to delay is really not one of substance. Anybody who has had experience knows what actually happens. After all, county administration is just as grave a matter as the administration of the Tourist Development Board. Suppose a county engineer drops dead, or is dismissed, on a Monday morning, you have the position that the whole of the public services in that county are directed by that one man. What happens? You appoint one of the assistant engineers to act as county engineer while the filling of the office is being passed over to the Appointments Commissioners and they appoint a substitute. The filling of the office may take a month or three months. It may even take nine months to get the right man. The first man chosen may, in fact, not take the job at all, so that the work of filling the office has to be gone all over again. The work of the county goes on under the direction of the temporary officer. When the permanent officer is appointed he takes over, and the work goes on as before.

Here, doubtless, a situation might arise in which a member of your staff is dismissed and where it may take a couple of months to replace him. How does the Minister think you are going to get a suitable candidate for a responsible office without a couple of months' enquiry. You are not going to pick responsible men off gooseberry bushes. The whole danger is that someone will be brought along and that pressure will be brought to bear on the board to appoint someone who will be said to have a national record: one who will fit very nicely into a job if there is very little work to be done and a large salary attached thereto. The job will be made for him, and irresistible pressure will be brought to bear on the board to make the appointment. Suppose a vacancy turns up, and there is no candidate in view, could the Minister himself—I am sure he looks upon himself as a paragon of efficiency—undertake to fill any responsible position in his Department without a couple of months' enquiry into a person's credentials and records, a person who very probably, if he is a suitable candidate, will also be in remunerative employment. If not, it is highly likely that he will not be a suitable candidate. The best men already have good jobs, and you will have to seek out a good man to fill a good job. You will not get him in three or four days.

There is always some measure of delay in getting a really high class man to fill a highly responsible job. My experience of dealing with the Local Appointments Commissioners is that there is never any undue delay. On every occasion on which a very long delay appeared to arise it was due to the fact that a candidate who applied for the job and was recommended for it by the Local Appointments Commissioners refused to take it up, whereupon it had to be referred back a second time to the Appointments Commissioners. In cases where candidates recommended for appointment by the Appointments Commissioners have taken up the positions, there has never been, in my opinion, any unreasonable delay on the part of the Appointments Commissioners. That system has undoubtedly been an unqualified blessing to those responsible for the appointment of persons in the public or semi-public service.

The Minister has not attempted to show why, because this is not a local authority, which does responsible work, or a central authority like the Civil Service, but is a commercial undertaking, that, therefore, the recruitment of staff ought not to start through the Local Appointments Commissioners. The Minister says that the system of the Appointments Commissioners is unsuitable. If he will cast his mind back on the grounds he gave for unsuitability, then I suggest they are grounds for the abolition of that method of recruiting staff for anybody. The Minister says the Appointments Commissioners are not a suitable body to appoint people because the job to be filled is a responsible position. But, surely, you cannot get more responsible positions than some of the high positions which have to be filled under a county council. The only other reason the Minister gave, beyond repeating that it was a commercial enterprise and that, therefore, this particular method of recruitment was unsuitable, was the want of control over the staffs. Has anybody ever suggested that the system of the Civil Service Commissioners and their functions has given the Government less control over the Civil Service, or that the use of the Local Appointments Commissioners has given the local authorities less control over their staffs? I think the Minister might indicate why it is that he thinks this method is unsuitable. As to the point dealt with by Deputy Dillon, the Minister relies on the alleged delay. Unless the Minister can show much stronger grounds than the mere repetition of the fact that this is a commercial body: that there is a difference between the character of this body and a county council, then I submit that he has said nothing to justify a different method of recruitment of staff. That is so, unless he goes on the other line: that for responsible positions the method of recruitment through the Local Appointments Commissioners is unsound, and would interfere with the authority which the board would have over its servants. But with regard to the other position, he has given no ground to show that the difference he alleges exists between the functions of this body and the functions, say, of the local authority justifies a different method of recruitment of staff.

We may take it that sub-section (3) is just eye-wash. What the Minister thinks about it is shown by what he has said. What leaves me completely blank with regard to an understanding of the section here is that the Minister tells us he wants £25,000 a year for the administrative expenses of this board; he told us he was going to have a board of five, or that it is not exceeding five; that is all he will tell us about the board. He asks the House under this section to give power to the board to appoint so many officers and servants as it shall from time to time think proper. The Minister tells us he wants a board; he wants £25,000 to spend on the administrative expenses of the board and its officers. Surely the House ought to be assisted by the Minister in getting some kind of picture as to what type of staff is required. He made no attempt to explain the type of headquarter staff that will be required, or the type of staff that will be required on inspectorial of other work. As far as the Bill is concerned, the £25,000 may be spent on any kind of officer from the secretary in charge of the headquarters institution to a charwoman down in one of the hotels which the new board may or may not build. I think it is absurd that the Minister should simply say that he wants £25,000, that he wants a board, and that he wants that board to have all the officers it requires. We ought to have some kind of idea as to the type of organisation that will exist under the board, so that we can have some reasonable chance of seeing what type of organisation is going to cost us £25,000 a year.

I suppose this discussion must come to a conclusion at some time. I do not question the suitability of the Local Appointments Commissioners to make local appointments, but that is an entirely different business to that which is at issue here. I am quite prepared to amend the section by taking out sub-sections (3) (4) and (5) if Deputy Mulcahy objects to them.

I am taking the Minister at his word.

If the board wanted to avail of the Local Appointments Commissioners, there is no reason why they should not. I was struck by the fact that the Electricity Supply Board, in whose Act a precisely similar section appears, have never availed of it.

They have got a selection board of their own. Will there be a selection board in this case?

That is a matter for the board itself, as it was a matter for the Electricity Supply Board. When you set up an organisation of this kind to carry out certain business operations, you put on the board the obligation of getting that done. You give them power to recruit staff to do it, and you give them full authority over that staff. They must have in relation to that staff precisely the same powers of control and discipline as the board of a privately-owned business house. You cannot run an undertaking of this kind on any other basis. I certainly do not propose to try it. It would be a completely foolish thing to do, and would make it impossible for this board to function efficiently. The responsibility is on the members of the board. If they have not got in relation to the staff the authority which a business man would expect to have over his staff, they cannot carry out that responsibility efficiently. Therefore, I think we must put them in precisely the same position as the board of a privately-owned company, subject only to the provisions of this Act which make them removable by the Minister if they themselves fail in their duty, and make them liable to submit certain reports, to submit accounts for audit, and so forth. Within those limitations, I gave them a free hand to do the job.

Can the Minister give us any idea, however elementary, of the type of organisation and the class of officers that are going to be appointed?

I do not know what information the Deputy wants. I think a reading of the Bill will give the Deputy as much information as I have.

The Minister deceives himself. A reading of the Bill shows that this board may build, equip, establish and operate hotels; it may provide services, sports, amusements, or other facilities; it may improve and maintain amenities; it may engage in any kind of publicity; it may establish tourist agencies; it may provide schemes for training people; it may prepare guide-books, itineraries and other publications; it may take over land, fishery rights, sporting rights, and all other kinds of rights. Does that convey in any way what type of organised staff is going to be set up?

The type of organised staff is going to be determined by the board.

I am correct then in putting it this way: The Minister says he wants £25,000; he wants a board: he wants that board to appoint as many officers as they think fit; and he wants us simply to shut up?

No. If I were the person chosen to be the executive officer of this board, I have a general idea of the type of organisation which I think would be best. I am sure, if Deputy Mulcahy would imagine himself in that position, he also could quite easily determine for himself the outlines of the organisation he would require. But of what value is it to the House that I should give my opinion or that he should give his? The board may say: "We have a different idea altogether. We have been given the responsibility, and we are going to set up the type of organisation which we think best." What the type of organisation is going to be I do not know, because the board has not yet been appointed.

Does the Minister tell the House that, in asking us to pass this Bill, to provide £25,000 administrative expenses, and to give statutory authority for the other moneys that may be spent here, he has not contemplated in any way the lines upon which the board are going to run their business?

That is a different question altogether. The Deputy asked about staff organisation.

Has the Minister not considered the lines upon which the board will organise their staff? Does he mean to say that he has approached the House without having had any conversations on that subject?

With whom?

With the people he has in mind to run this board?

I certainly have had no conversations with anybody.

Then I think that, in the financial circumstances of the present day or in any financial circumstances, the Minister should not ask Parliament to pass moneys to this extent without giving them some assistance along the lines of understanding what kind of organised staff this board is going to use for the purpose of carrying on its work and spending this money.

I should like the Minister to make clear how the adoption of the Appointments Commissioners would interfere with the control of the staff, once appointed?

I do not think it is necessary to go into that subject now. The Deputy knows as well as I do that the appointment of staff by the Local Appointments Commissioners would put the officers of this board in precisely the same relationship to the board as civil servants have to the Minister. That is no way to run a business concern. In the case of a business concern an officer—even a most prominent officer of the organisation—can be sacked for incompetence

And a civil servant cannot?

A civil servant will not be, as the Deputy well knows. If he gets drunk, or hits his superior, or turns up late in the morning, he will be sacked, but, if he merely makes mistakes or proves not to be efficient enough for his job, he will be transferred somewhere else—not sacked.

That is a new light on the Civil Service.

If a civil servant insults his Minister he may be sacked, but if he costs the country £100,000 he will get promoted.

He will be changed to another Department where he will have a softer job.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

This section seems to me to be too wide in the powers which it confers on the officers of the board. It says that the board may exercise any of the powers and perform any of the functions conferred and imposed on the board by this Act through or by any of its officers or servants authorised by the board in that behalf. I should like to know what the Minister means by that— that they can delegate any of their duties, if in their opinion it is prudent to do so, to the officers of the board?

That is the normal provision which appears in most Acts of this character.

That is merely a copy of some other section?

It is a copy of a section which appears in similar Acts. At the same time, I think it may be desirable to reconsider it. We will have later on some discussions upon the question of appeals from decisions of the board. While I do not see my way at present to accept any of the amendments that have been proposed, I think, having regard to them, we may find it desirable to amend this section so as to make it clear that a decision upon, say, an application for registration, will be a decision of the board and not a decision of an officer of the board; so that there will be, in fact, an appeal from an inspector or whoever has a particular job under the board to the board as a whole. I am prepared to consider amending that section.

As the section stands, I gather that the board—and I think the Minister indicated that the personnel of the board would be a really important factor—can delegate its authority and its functions to one of its officials.

As the section stands, it can. When I am prepared to take out of that section the power of the board to delegate to its officers the final decision on questions of registration or other similar matters which may arise under the Bill, an appeal would lie to the board also on the questions of grading of hotels and so on.

The reason I ask the Minister to consider this question is that it seems to me that, unless he is prepared to go further in the matter, the tendency will be to let the civil servants of the board—who are chosen in the competent manner we have heard discussed—run the whole thing; and the board would fade away, leaving simply the civil servants, not the business men who are on the board, really running the whole thing. I am not putting this in a controversial manner, but I want the Minister to consider the particular danger that unless he goes further than he proposes he will be making the board a mere court of appeal.

No function will be delegated to an officer except that which will be subject to a decision of the board itself.

But those who will be working under the board will be permanent civil servants.

As Minister for Industry and Commerce, I delegate to many officers authority to do certain things, and the fact is well known that the signing of various classes of documents and the conclusion of certain forms of agreement are altogether too numerous to be dealt with personally.

And which are probably illegal or are almost certainly illegal.

On that question the Deputy found no one to agree with him.

Three judges of the High Court agreed with me on that point.

Certainly none of the members of Deputy Cosgrave's Government agreed with Deputy Costello when he was Attorney-General. It has been done in the past, and is done now, that a Minister delegates to particular officers of his Department powers to carry out certain functions which are by statute conferred upon him. The board can do precisely the same thing, that is to say, authorise the secretary to purchase land or sign a lease or do some other work of that kind for it, with its authority, in a manner which would be binding upon the board. I am prepared, however, to amend this section to make it clear that those decisions which affect private interests must be decisions of the board and may not be decisions of the officers of the board. That, I hope, will go some way to meet the representations that have been made.

A lot will depend on the character of the amendment. I can assure the Minister that his predecessors when in office went personally into all these things that they were required by statute to do. I remember myself delegating authority, and yet, as a matter of fact, I had to hear a case and come to a decision formally. But there may have been changes since then.

I think it is quite clear that the Minister has not really considered the scope of this section as it stands at the moment. The members of the board can irrevocably delegate all their functions to one particular officer and there is no provision by which such power may be—if I might use the word—undelegated.

The Minister could remove the board.

The Minister has not yet seen the point. The powers could be irrevocably delegated and once there is an irrevocable delegation the Minister can do what he likes about removing the board.

I invite the Deputy to re-read the section.

I invite the Minister to read the section, not to talk of re-reading it.

There is nothing about irrevocable delegation.

Where is the means of taking back such delegation of power?

There is no means of making such irrevocable delegation, such as is suggested.

Of course there is.

Let the Deputy read the section again:—

"The board may exercise any powers and perform any of the functions conferred and imposed on the board by this Act through or by any of its officers or servants authorised by the board in that behalf."

I am not an eminent lawyer, but I interpret that section more accurately than the Deputy.

I have no doubt the Minister would try.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
A member of the board who has any interest in any company or concern with which the board proposes to make any contract or any interest in such contract shall disclose to the board the fact of such interest and the nature thereof, and such member shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of the board relating to such contract, and such disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the board.

I move amendment No. 8:

Before Section 13 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The board shall not enter into any contract, provided for under Part II of this Act, with any company or concern in which a member of the board has any interest.

(2) A member of the board who has any interest in any contract contemplated by the board shall disclose to the board the fact of such interest and the nature thereof, and such member shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of the board relating to such contract, and such disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the board.

I have drafted a new section in order absolutely to protect the dealings of this board with any body or any corporation or company that might have an interest in it or be interested through a member of the board. I am not saying that this is a better section, but what I intended to do was to guard the board so far as the public is concerned, to assure people that there would be no allegation of corruption as regards dealings with any company in which they had an interest.

I think that my intention in putting in this section and the intention of the Deputies who signed the amendment are the same; but the amendment that they have moved is altogether too restrictive. It would prevent the board entering into a contract with a company in which a member of the board is a shareholder. For instance, if a member of the board is a shareholder in Guinness's, I suppose the board could not order Guinness's stout. The amendment is entirely too restrictive.

It is not intended to cover such ridiculous things as that.

I think the provisions of the Bill are sufficient safeguard against any such dangers. The section reads:

The board may exercise any of the powers and perform any of the functions conferred and imposed on the board by this Act through or by any of its officers or servants authorised by the board in that behalf.

I think that is sufficient.

Supposing a member of the board does not discharge his duty, the duty which is purported to be imposed upon him by that section, what is to happen?

What is to happen under the amendment? Nothing! If the Deputy wants sanctions I am prepared to listen.

I do not want anything of the kind. It is an absolutely absurd provision, which means nothing.

I might make the suggestion that at least ten Bills drafted in the Deputy's time contained exactly the same provision.

Produce them; produce any one single instance that there was something in the nature of sanctions.

The Electricity Supply Act.

Nothing may happen if the provisions that are in this section are disregarded?

Except that the member would probably cease to be a member of the board.

Administrative action.

I do not know where the power is going to come from for that. Here was a case where an obvious slip was pointed out to the Minister. Instead of receiving it in the normal way, he regards it almost as an insult and refuses to consider it. This is very harmful from the Parliamentary point of view. An amendment has been put down by Deputy McMenamin. He has pointed out the objection to the present section that supposing a man is a member of the board and is engaged in some occupation—building, painting, or anything of that kind—and there is a question of a contract to be placed, this member apparently cannot give his advice to the board. He cannot join in the deliberations even if he has more expert knowledge than other members of the board. However, so far as the point raised by Deputy Costello is concerned, whether it was or was not in previous Acts, I have still to learn that the absence of sanctions from any previous measure makes a case for the absence of sanctions here. After all, that is what we are discussing; not any previous Act, but the present Act. If the Minister produced one Act or ten Acts, the Electricity Supply Act, or any other Act, it is irrelevant so far as interpreting the meaning of this particular section is concerned. It might be quite good for the kind of controversy the Minister goes on with, but for interpreting or helping legislation it is a waste of time.

It may be necessary to have some form of penalty provided for a breach of the provisions of the section, but what form of penalty you can have other than removal from the board is difficult to see. My controversial spirit was aroused by Deputy Costello's description of the section as absurd and ridiculous. I think these are the words he used. I merely retorted by saying that he himself was responsible for Acts containing a precisely similar section. He asked me to produce one and I produced the Electricity Supply Act. Section 10 of the Electricity Supply Act is word for word what is here.

No other connecting link with it?

If I had the Act before me, I am pretty sure I would produce it.

It is an irrelevant waste of time on the part of the Minister.

However, I will have the point considered. There is no good in debating it now. Personally, I think that the mere mention of punishment will be of little use because the only effective punishment is removal from the board.

Will the Minister consider dealing with this matter in the way it is dealt with in the case of local authorities? I refer the Minister to the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, Article 12, under which a member of a local authority, who has any connection with a contract, taking part in the proceedings of a local authority is guilty of an offence. Will the Minister consider dealing with the matter from that aspect? I think that would be sufficient to prevent any member of a board not disclosing the fact that he is interested.

I will consider whether we can impose any form of punishment on a member who breaks the regulation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: That Section 13 stand part of the Bill.

The Minister is looking into the "deliberation" point?

If a man is an expert in business and happens to be in touch with the board he cannot give advice.

He must clear out.

It is not that he cannot vote, but he cannot even give the result of his experience.

At the same time, it could happen that there might be some contract in connection with which a member of a board might have a definite interest and in which he might possibly seek to influence other members of the board unduly in favour of the firm in which he was interested.

I do not see how you can avoid that sort of thing if you put experts on the board or people in business.

The Deputy's suggestion is that we should allow members to take part in the deliberations but not in decisions. I shall consider that.

Anything you like like that. I do not want to sacrifice the value of the man's knowledge.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
In addition to the specific powers conferred on the board by this Act and the duties imposed on the board by this Act, it shall be lawful for the board to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) build, establish, equip, or operate hotels, guest houses, holiday hostels and holiday camps or assist (financially or otherwise) in the building, establishing, equipping, or operating thereof;
(b) provide or assist (financially or otherwise) in providing services, sports, amusements, or other facilities which appear to the board to be calculated to improve tourist traffic;
(c) improve and maintain amenities and conditions which appear to the board to be likely to affect tourist traffic;
(d) engage in any kind of publicity in connection with tourist traffic;
(e) establish or assist in establishing any form of agency in connection with tourist traffic;
(f) provide or assist in providing schemes for the training of persons to do work which is wholly or mainly connected with tourist traffic;
(g) prepare and publish guidebooks, itineraries, time-tables, and other publications for the benefit or assistance of tourists.

Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, do not lend themselves to successive decisions after amendment No. 9. I suggest that amendments No. 9 be considered and if carried that Deputy Benson and Deputy McMenamin should study the section as amended, and re-submit, with necessary alterations, their amendments on the Report Stage. It would be the most satisfactory procedure.

I move amendment No. 9:

To delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute:—

(a) assist, financially (including by way of loan) or otherwise, in the provision, extension, or improvement of accommodation for tourists;

(b) build, establish, equip, or operate hotels, guest houses, holiday hostels, holiday homes, youth hostels, and holiday camps or assist, financially (including by way of loan) or otherwise, in the building, establishing, equipping, or operating thereof;

(c) provide or assist, financially (including by way of loan) or otherwise, in providing.

The adequacy of the phraseology in the brackets in the section, by which the board had power to assist financially by way of loan in the activities stated here was questioned during the Second Reading debate, and in order to remove any doubt as to the board's ability to grant loans for these purposes the wording has been altered, as Deputies will see, in the amendment. There are one or two other slight alterations in these paragraphs also— the insertion of a reference to youth hostels and so forth which appear to be desirable: but the main purpose of the change is to clear up the doubt about the ability of the board to make loans for these purposes.

Then there is the general power in the section. I think some Deputies objected to that.

Could the Minister say why he is giving the board power to make grants, which I think is given by the insertion of the words "(including by way of loan) or otherwise"? It seems to me that if any assistance is given to a hotel the only reasonable and fair way would be by way of loan and not by way of grant.

The board cannot make a grant in fact without the prior sanction of the Minister as provided in the Bill. But the importance of including these words is to indicate that the board can assist in these activities by way of lending money rather than by directly investing its own money in the enterprise.

Can the Minister say where is the provision for making a grant?

The board must invest the money advanced to it in profitable enterprises. Section 16 (2) provides that the money advanced to the board shall be expended by the board solely on works, investments, or loans of a profit-earning character. But sub-section (3) gives the Minister power "to waive altogether or to postpone for such time as he thinks proper the repayment of any sum or a part of any sum so advanced or any instalment of any such sum or any part of any such instalment," or "to waive altogether or to postpone for such time as he thinks proper the payment of interest on any sum or part of any sum so advanced." In other words, the board is restricted, so far as the payment of a grant is concerned, to investing in undertakings of a profit-earning character. It cannot give that money by way of grant. It can in effect make a grant only in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), which means that it makes an investment; but the collection of interest on the investment may be waived, or the repayment of the amount advanced may be postponed, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I think that is Deputy Benson's difficulty. If I understood Deputy Benson's intervention, he wants to confine the operations of the board in this particular matter to loans which would be paid back and would pay a reasonable amount of interest. He failed for the moment. What is the justification in individual cases for the Minister and the board combined giving a grant? I gathered from the Minister's exposition that the Minister and the board combined can make a grant. It amounts to that. What is the justification for that as distinct from helping by means of a loan—giving a grant to a private individual who may be in competition with other private individuals?

I should imagine that in such a case consent would not be given. But it need not necessarily be a private individual. It can be a local authority and will in most cases be a local authority. It might be for the purpose of providing some such amenity as a swimming pool——

——or a promenade or something of that sort which would not be of a profit-earning character.

It is only in such cases that that would be given.

I can conceive the desirability of what the Minister has stated. Would the Minister be able to provide an amendment—perhaps it is only a question of draftsmanship—to limit it in any way to matters of that kind so that it cannot be given for the purpose of giving a grant to hotel proprietors who are in competition with other hotel proprietors?

It is hard to say how you could put in a limitation of that kind. It would be desirable if there was a rule or something by which you would have impartial treatment of individuals by the board. In practice we could do it; it would be to say that the board will not do it without getting the prior consent of the Minister. It is not that the judgement of the Minister would be better but that he can be questioned here. He is accountable for giving his consent, and that brings public opinion to bear upon the opinion of the board.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment provides for its being spent on hotels, guest houses, holiday hostels, etc. Assuming that it is already provided for under paragraph (a) of the amendment, then paragraph (b) is somewhat difficult to understand.

There is an amendment down here which would enable it to be discussed. It is not intended to confine the board's investments to loans only. It is intended that the board should have powers to invest.

I want to stop the giving of a grant to hotels.

Section 16 stops that. It says the sums advanced to the board shall be expended by the board only on works or loans of a profit-earning character.

The Minister can override that.

The Minister can override it. He can waive altogether or postpone the payment of the interest or any part of the sum advanced.

If the Minister will give me a sum of money I will be quite indifferent whether it is a grant or loan if he will consent to waive altogether or to postpone the repayment of the sum advanced or postpone the repayment of the interest for 100 years. On these conditions I would be quite willing to receive money as a loan, not as a grant.

I can assure the Deputy that the number of such advances will be very few. They will be for such obvious purposes as I have mentioned.

That is the reason why Deputy Benson says that you should restrict sub-section (b). When you come to sub-section (b), which means the building of hotels, is there any objection to limiting that to loans and investments as distinct from grants?

Take as an analogy the Trade Loans Guarantee cases where the money guaranteed is put into some privately-owned business concerns. That money is lent upon a certain agreement as to the amount of interest to be paid and the repayment of the loan by instalments. But, time and again, in relation to individual cases it has been found necessary and desirable to postpone the repayments of the principal and waive the payment of the interest so that difficulties of an abnormal character can be got over. That is not unusually done. The power to do that exists. It is quite possible that the board may make loans of a character similar to Guaranteed Trade Loans to companies operating hotels, and they should have power to do it if circumstances justify it. We think it would be very undesirable that they should have no power whatever to let instalments of the principal remain outstanding for a period if there was difficulty in repaying it or otherwise dealing with difficulties that might arise.

Yes, if there was a bad season due to bad weather or say the outbreak of war.

Section 16 appears to apply in relation to the Minister and the board. It applies to loans between the Minister and the board. What sub-section (3) of 16 provides is that the Minister may release the board from the liability of paying interest on a loan. But that sub-section does not prevent the board from afterwards doing what the man in the Gospel did going out and throttling the man outside to whom the money was lent. That seems to me to be possible in the section as it stands. The second point I want to raise is that in sub-section (2) of Section 16, provision is made that this money that is to be advanced to the board is to be invested only in loans or works of a profit-earning character. Does that profit-earning character in the case of a loan mean a loan of a profit-earning character to the board or a loan to the hotel-keeper to expend in a work of a profit-earning character?

It is on works of a profit-earning character.

The board must give the money for works of a profit-earning character. That is from the point of view of the gentleman who is operating the works. In other words, if a swimming bath is set up the board are to give financial assistance to the person operating the swimming bath who is to make money by it? Therefore it is a work of a profit-earning character to that man but not a work of a profit-earning character to the board. Applying that to the loan, if that construction is correct, the work is the work of a profit-earning character to the owner of the swimming bath but not work of a profit-earning character to the board.

We mean profitable to the board.

I think Section 14, 15 and 16 will not work together. They are extremely ambiguous and they will be found very difficult to work.

The Deputy must not think of the board having a large sum of money which they received from the Minister for Finance. In a proposal of this kind, a normal investment by the board or a loan for the purpose of some works, the board will have to come to the Minister for Finance and get sanction for that amount of money and when sanction is got that amount of money will be advanced to the board, just as the Electricity Supply Board at present get advances from the Minister for Finance. If the Electricity Supply Board want to carry out new works of any kind, they will come to the Minister for Finance with proposals for that work. They will specify the amount of capital required. Before that capital is provided finance will have to be satisfied that it is going to be a profit-earning investment, that it will bring profit which will enable it to meet the repayment of the principal and repayment of the interest on the capital. Now the money advanced to the Tourist Board will be advanced in the same way. The board will have to come with a particular proposal and show that the work proposed to be done is of a profit-earning character. On that basis it will get the advance, but the total advances must not exceed £600,000.

What is the meaning of profit-earning?

Capable of earning a profit which will meet the interest charges on the principal and the instalments repayable on the loan. In practice we hope that the board will have an income from these investments which will liquidate the advances.

Would not the painting and papering of a hotel be of a profit-earning character.

If the board loans £100,000 at five per cent. for that purpose, then, it would be a profit-earning investment for the board.

I am not quite clear as to the powers that the Minister has, or that the board have, at the moment, but, taking the example the Minister gave, the building at one of the seaside places of a small pier, in what sense would that be profit-earning?

It might be profitable to the board in that they might go to the urban authority and say "We will lend you £1,000 at 3 per cent."

I gather it would be desirable in a number of cases like that to make, not merely a loan, but what may amount to a grant. Have they any power to do that?

No power to make a grant for that purpose?

No power to make a grant within the strict meaning of the term.

But otherwise? Have they power to give a grant or what would amount to a grant? The Minister suggested that, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance, the Government may waive its claim to get back the money. But what power has the board to waive the getting of the interest from the local authority? It seems to me, as Deputy Costello pointed out, that all you have in Section 16 is power to waive to the advantage of the board. But surely the board itself has no power to go to a local authority and say, "We cannot give you a grant, but, with the consent of the Minister, we can do what is equivalent to giving you a grant, namely, with his consent, seeing the desirable nature of this work, we can waive payment of interest for any number of years, or the payment of the principal for any number of years." They cannot do that, but I gather from the Minister that it is his contention that they could do that.

I see the Deputy's point, and I will have it examined. Although the Minister for Finance has power to waive the payment of interest with the board, it is not clear that the board can waive the payment of interest by the borrowers.

It is desirable that they should have power to give what is tantamount to a grant.

Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 14:—

To delete paragraph (e).

The purpose of this amendment is to delete the paragraph which allows the Tourist Board to set up an agency. My purpose in putting it down is that at the present moment many of the tourists who come to this country do so by virtue of the arrangements of a tourist agency of some sort. Those tourist agencies recommend this country to people, whatever town or country they may be in; they urge people to come here. If the tourist board sets up an agency in competition with existing agencies, one of the obvious effects will be to put all the existing agencies' backs up and they will encourage people to go anywhere but to this country. What exactly will be the useful purpose in setting up this agency, I do not know. Most likely it will do very much more harm than good.

The consideration which the Deputy has referred to will undoubtedly deter the board from exercising the power conferred in this paragraph, unless there was very good reason for it. I really think we should give the board this power, even though they may not find it necessary to exercise it. It might happen that the board will become dissatisfied with the existing agencies, the manner in which they are operating, and their general attitude towards this country and the development of its tourist trade. In these circumstances they may find it necessary to undertake the establishment of a new agency. I think the board should have the power, though I agree they would be ill-advised to use it unless there was clear need for it. To delete the paragraph, as the Deputy suggests, would be to deprive them of the power to establish a new agency. We can conceive circumstances in which it would be necessary for them to have that power.

Does the Minister think that the Tourist Board, with the finances at its disposal, would be capable of setting up a tourist agency to compete with people like the American Express Company or Cooks?

It might be necessary for the board to assist by way of investment in the establishment of an agency in New York or some other centre from which tourist traffic might be attracted, if they found the existing agency services there were not functioning properly or in a manner completely satisfactory from their point of view. I think they should have power to undertake the establishment of an agency of that kind anywhere if the need for it was there. I would not like to see them deprived of that power. Of course, it is desirable that they should work through existing agencies so long as these agencies are prepared to work for them. I think that is likely to be the case for quite a long time to come, because their interests are the same.

Where are they going to get the money with which to start the agency?

From the Exchequer.

That is, from the £600,000?

Not necessarily. In addition to the £600,000, there are non-repayable advances up to a maximum of £45,000 a year which can be used for any of the general purposes of the board.

Does the Minister really envisage that the board would enter into business of a tourist agency?

It could do so.

And it could, I suppose, earn a very substantial liability instead of a very substantial profit. What is going to happen then? Who is going to foot the bill?

We have limited our liability to £45,000 a year.

Anything above that does not matter?

Well, we could then get a new board.

That would not be much use to the person who has lost his money.

The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce would in the ordinary course examine into the operations of the board in order to see that they would not be likely to run at a loss. Take the Electricity Supply Board as an example. Every now and again they come with proposals to extend the service or to undertake some new development. Time and again we examine into certain of their proposals and tell them that they are likely to be at a loss and, therefore, we could not agree to advance any capital. If a satisfactory case is put up and a proposal is likely to be beneficial, we express our satisfaction and we give the capital required. Our attitude towards this board will be somewhat similar.

But the £45,000 may be spent without saying a word to anybody?

That is true; it is a transfer for general purposes.

And they can incur all the debts under that to which Deputy Costello refers.

Apropos Deputy Benson's remarks, I do not want it to be taken that they will get the £45,000. They can get an annual convention up to a maximum of £45,000, but the actual amount will be determined on the basis of an estimate.

And the actual details of the estimate will have to be approved by the two Ministers concerned?

In a general sort of way we will have to approve the proposals. Again, I will take the Electricity Supply Board as an analogy. In the case of a particular proposal of the board you do not go further than to examine the estimates of revenue that are likely to come in, relate them to the capital expenditure on the basis of a rough and ready system of calculation, and then determine whether or not the result will be profitable. In this particular case the projects that we are likely to get from the board will be more varied in character and they will cover a much wider field than the proposals of the Electricity Supply Board, but at the same time the method of approach to these proposals will be much the same.

As a member of the old Government, I must say that I have been touched in the last couple of months when I remember how near perfection we seemed to have reached in every walk of political life—in the protection of the State, in the prevention of treason and in the conduct of ordinary commercial undertakings. One might say the high mark was reached by us, beyond which one could not go further. I accept all that. I will now ask the Minister to consider the danger of giving power to a board which may only be exercised in exceptional circumstances. If you give power to set up an agency, it is an invitation to do so, and I am only asking the Minister to consider the chances there are of difficulties arising, rather than advantages coming from that principle. Would it not be better, if it was necessary to set up agencies, that the board would go to the Minister and ask him to pass an enabling Bill for that purpose, rather than, practically, inviting them to do so? If you give power the tendency will be to use the power on the part of the board. It is a matter of balancing up conveniences, and I suggest that the easier way would be to delete the section and, if it was found that we were not getting sufficient publicity in the United States, to see if an amending Act could be brought in giving that power.

I am not clear what is meant by "agency," and what Deputy O'Sullivan meant when he criticised this proposal. After all, an agency might consist in having a single representative in, say, New York or San Francisco. Surely it is not proposed to limit the board's power so that they will not be permitted to send a representative to New York with a view to organising, by means of suitable contacts, interest in tours in Ireland. Is it proposed to limit the power of such representatives? Further, I can see that the word "agency" has so wide a meaning that any proposal to take the clause out of the section would nullify a great deal of the obvious work that will be before the board.

Would the Minister consider whether under that clause it would be lawful for the board to take part in the establishment of a company as a tourist agency?

Then that makes it pretty clear that the board could engage in any kind of agency.

A tourist agency then might be a tourist agency in competition with or in substitution for, say, Cook's or the American Express Agency.

There is no regular definition.

There is such a variety of things that might happen it is very difficult to see where to stop. I know that the Government of Egypt voted £50,000 to be spent, I think, through Messrs. Cook or through a subsidiary of Cook's to advertise Egypt in Great Britain. We do not propose to do anything like that, and could not afford anything like that, but that type of development might be necessary in certain circumstances in certain countries, and we would like the board to have the power to do that if they felt that it would be an advantage to do so. As to Deputy O'Sullivan's remarks about complacency on this Bill, I should remind him that the powers he referred to were not provided in the Electricity Supply Act of 1927.

When in Egypt I went up the Nile and I remember getting a pot of jam, which I was told was supplied by the purveyors to His Majesty, the Khedive, and also to Cook's. I was not quite clear which title was the more important. Sometimes more important title is first and sometimes it is last.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I object to the clause in the section which gives power to erect hotels. There are obvious reasons why hotels should not be built generally. While a strong case could be made that it might be essential to have that power, the danger is that the moment it is given it might be exercised. For that reason I do not like power being given to erect hotels when people who are running hotels can be assisted under the Bill. The board is authorised to erect, equip and run hotels, and if they did that they would have it in their power to destroy the vested interests and the livelihood of other people. All through this Bill there is power of inspection and of grading of any hotel in the State. The body with that power can define the general status of any hotel. There is power to erect a hotel anywhere that the board thinks it necessary to do so. My objection to this section is strengthened by the example the Minister gave, as to places where it might be necessary to build hotels. The example about the aerodrome did not convince me. I understand the air base in Clare is only 12 miles from Ennis. Surely it is not suggested, in these days of fast transport and motor-cars that a distance of 12 miles from an aerodrome to a town where there is accommodation, and where there are people with vested interests, and with good hotels, is too far. If the hotels there are not good enough they can be improved by money that is being provided under the Bill. Surely no one suggests that the board would be justified in erecting new hotels in such places.

It would be a dreadful thing if this House gave power to any board to do such a thing, because the money being provided could be used to destroy the property and the means of livelihood of people who own hotels. In addition, perhaps hotels would be erected that would only suit a particular class, the wealthy class, and that their tariff would not permit ordinary persons going into them. The Minister claims that it is necessary for the board to have this power, but there was a sort of half promise that it would not be used. On principle, I do not think that it should be given. I do not think any case has been made for it. This is a small State but we have very big ideas. I hardly know of any place where such a necessity as regards hotels would arise in this State. If the necessity exists there is plenty of initiative to provide hotels. In putting in this section perhaps the Minister thought it wise to have power to ginger up people who would not toe the line. Is there not sufficient gingering power in the Bill already, by means of grading certificates? If hotel owners do not bring their hotels up to a fairly reasonable standard they would be graded accordingly and get no assistance. If a man has valuable property there is the threat that it is in the power of the board to construct a hotel somewhere in the neighbourhood. If I were asked about that power, I would say that they would never do such a thing. But they can do it, and that is the awkward thing. I do not see that we should hand over that man's money to a board which is given the power to put that man out of business with his own money. That is what we are doing in law. Are we right in doing so? Can we guarantee that the power will never be exercised? The Minister may reply, "Before they would do that, I would have them abolished," but the Minister himself might be abolished in the meantime.

Was the Deputy ever in Aughavanagh?

I do not like this provision. The Minister may be convinced that it is necessary to have it, but, taking the Bill as a whole, I do not see that it is necessary. All power with regard to the status of hotels is to be in the hands of the board, and I think that is enough, without the threat of putting hoteliers out of business. In principle, I am opposed to it.

I am in agreement with most of what Deputy McMenamin has said, though possibly from a slightly different angle. I do see that there is a certain amount in what the Minister said on Second Reading, that it might be desirable to have a body which would build a hotel, not necessarily for profit, at places like Rhynanna and, particularly, as I understood that most of the flying there will be done by night. The very close proximity of a hotel in these circumstances is, I think, desirable. The point of view, however, from which I oppose this power of the board to build is that the one body should not have power to build and operate a hotel and, at the same time, the power given to them by the Bill to control every other hotel in the country. Every hotel and guest house is to come under the power of the board. They are to be inspected and graded, and yet that same body, according to the Bill, is to have power to build a hotel, not necessarily, admittedly, in competition with any of these hotels, but, at the same time, I do not think the two functions can go together. They cannot be an inspectorial body and, at the same time, an operating body, and if the Minister is convinced that the power is necessary, some different body from this should operate any hotel which, in his view, is necessary, and not this board. This board should confine itself entirely to inspecting and controlling hotels, and they should look at these hotels not as hotel keepers—and this will make them hotel keepers—but from the point of view of the tourist coming to the hotel, possibly late at night, and the facilities he will get. That should be their attitude to every hotel when they come to inspect it and to grade it, but if they are in the business themselves, it is going to be made much more difficult for them to look at these hotels from that point of view. If the Minister wants this power, he should set up some other body and not give it to this board.

On the point raised by Deputy McMenamin, I merely want to repeat what I said on the Second Reading stage, that it is not the intention that the board should enter into competition with private concerns, and I think the powers conferred under Section 16 will be sufficient to ensure that control will be exercised over the board in that matter, if it is necessary to do so. The term "competition" has, of course, different meanings in different circumstances. A hotel in Donegal might be in competition with a hotel in Kerry.

It would have no chance.

Possibly so, but hotels in widely different parts of the country may be in competition for a particular type of trade, and when I say that it is not the intention of the board to enter into competition with private individuals, what I mean is that the board will, in no circumstances, undertake commercial activities which it can prompt private enterprise to undertake. It will be the normal function of the board to interest itself in the development and expansion of hotels by means of loans and investments and not by building and operating hotels, but there are circumstances, which we can contemplate, in which the board might find it desirable, and even necessary, to proceed on its own. I gave the example of Rhynanna. It is only an example, and, as I made quite clear the other day, my words must not be taken as indicating that there is a definite intention already formed to construct a hotel there. Such a hotel will not be necessary until passenger traffic by air across the Atlantic is developed, but if it is developed and Rhynanna becomes of the importance which we intend and hope, namely, a junction between various air services, it is there, at the airport, that hotel accommodation will be required. Passengers waiting for a service, or staying overnight after a journey, will want the accommodation at the airport, and not at Ennis. They will not go to Ennis, and would prefer to continue their journey by plane to some other point. That, however, was only an illustration. Another which could be given would be the possibility of some locality being developed as a special kind of tourist resort.

Where is that place?

Any place. The plan of development might embody hotel accommodation which no private concern was willing to provide, and, in such circumstances, the board might have to do it. There is another type of case which might arise, and it will probably be the type of case in respect of which the board will most frequently have to exercise the power to operate hotels, if it is to do so at all, that is, where it has advanced money on a debenture to a hotel. Because of circumstances, it may have to take over the hotel and operate it, until they can dispose of it to somebody else, or decide what they are going to do with it. It may frequently happen that the board in order to protect its own loans, may have to exercise whatever powers it may get under agreements with borrowers to supervise and actually undertake the management of a concern for a time.

Then, of course, there is another problem which is really a very big problem and one to which the board will have to give immediate consideration, that is, the provision of accommodation, other than hotel accommodation, for the poorer classes of holiday-makers, those who could not afford to pay the cost of any reasonably-sized hotel. As Deputies are aware, the development of holiday camps, holiday resorts, for short-term working-class visitors, has proceeded in other countries. If private enterprise will undertake that development here, well and good. The board will assist and encourage them, but if there is no indication of a development by private enterprise on these lines, or if it finds that it does not pay, the board will have to assist financially or, in certain circumstances, itself undertake the construction and operation of holiday camps of that kind.

But they will not be hotels.

They will not, but they will be very close to institutions such as are referred to in this paragraph. I do not want to leave the House under any misapprehension with regard to this particular paragraph. While I think it is desirable that the board should have the power to build and operate hotels, and while I think the possession of these powers will strengthen its general position in relation to private interests and make it easier for it to get its main job done, I would regard it as definitely contrary to the public interest that the board should unnecessarily engage in any business enterprise of this kind. Their main function must be to stimulate private enterprise, and, if they do not succeed in stimulating private enterprise to provide better hotel and other holiday facilities which the country requires, then, they will have failed in their main job and we shall have to reconsider the position again, but the affording of that stimulus to private enterprise is their main function. It will be only when all attempts to secure the development desired through private commercial enterprise fails that they would contemplate exercising the powers conferred by the section.

There is one particular type of enterprise to which the Minister did not refer. I am sure Deputy Moore will agree with me that there are places much more tranquil than the North of Ireland, namely, certain portions of Kerry and Wicklow —Aughavannagh for instance. It would be very desirable to attract a certain type of tourist to these places, precisely because of their quietness and isolation. I do not know how far at the present moment if you rely upon private enterprise alone, there is any hope of development of hotels of that particular type. You may say: "If it will not pay commercially, what good is it?" It is good from several points of view, good advertising for the hotel industry as a whole and good for the country. Tourists would come not only to that hotel but to the country, and they would benefit the country as a whole. That particular type of a hotel may have to be run for a while at a loss. That is the kind of enterprise on the part of the board in building hotels that would be desirable, much more so than the case of Rhynana because people have to be carried three or four miles to hotels at most ports. I do not think the board would enter into any real competition with anybody in cases of that kind. I wonder if the Minister has in mind the development of that particular type of hotel, whether he has in mind catering for every type of tourist, not merely those who are poor but also those who are rich? After all, we are looking on this as a business and, therefore, it may be advisable to cater for that particular type of business which, if it be left to private enterprise, may not be catered for.

On the other hand, let us take the case of a townland in which there are a number of hotels. Let us say that it is not a port. Take the case of Woodford. I believe a predecessor of the Minister in the British Parliament on being asked a question concerning the erection of a pier at Woodford, said that the matter was receiving his full consideration and only then it was disclosed that Woodford was not a seaside place at all. Let us take a place like that and say that there are no proper hotels there. Even so, I take it for granted that in that particular case the board will rely on the other powers it has at its disposal to improve the place and, however inefficient these hotels are, I gather it is the purpose of the Minister that the board will not interfere in the way of building hotels, that in order to prevent what might be a public abuse in the way of undue competition with private enterprise, he is prepared to allow the situation to be dealt with by other means.

There was another point raised by Deputy Benson, namely, the grading of the hotels by the board. If they build hotels themselves they are bound to grade them in the very highest class, otherwise there would be no justification for their existence. There is, however, the danger that whereas these hotels may be very good for a period after they are opened, they may deteriorate. The board would then have an unfair advantage over other hotels and the system would throw doubt on the value of the grading of hotels. You have the difficulty mentioned by Deputy Benson that in some cases the person summoned to appear before the court may also be a member of the court which is to deliver sentence. I think there is a point there that should deserve further consideration from the Minister.

That point will definitely have to be considered if, in the course of time, it is found that the board is going for any reason into the hotel business to any extensive degree. If that should arise, we shall have to consider the matter afresh, but I do not contemplate any development of that kind. I remember when I was in Canada coming across one of these hotels built, not by the Government, but by a Government-owned railway in an area which they wished to develop. They built a very luxurious hotel and induced a number of millionaires to stay in the locality. As a result, after some time, these millionaires began to build residences there and the area was very quickly developed. The hotel never paid and was never intended to pay. It was erected merely to induce development in that particular district. Of course, we have no such vast tracts in this country, but I mention the matter merely as an illustration of the circumstances which might justify the board in undertaking the building of hotels in certain areas.

The Minister apparently thinks that it is better to leave the matter as it is until abuses develop. I think it would be much wiser to remove the possibility of such abuses arising. The Minister mentioned that he anticipated that a number of hotels which would be operated by the board for some time might be sold by the board to try to recoup themselves for money advanced on debentures. I can see no power here which allows the board to sell them.

There is no limitation on the part of the board to purchase or to dispose of the property. I do not know that it is necessary to have any special provisions to cover this point.

Would it not be better in that particular case to lie at the loss of the money that the board has advanced? Here is a case where the board might be anxious to try to save as much as possible out of that particular money. However, they are in competition with other hotels in the same town. Would it not be better to lie at the loss in that case?

If the board has to face the possibility of running that particular hotel indefinitely then it might be far wiser to cut their losses. The place might be going down through bad management and they might consider that under different management it would be a success. For a period they would carry on the concern until they got a new purchaser, but that would not be a long period. They should have power to do that in order to protect their interests.

Section 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

There is a limitation of £45,000 on the amount to be advanced to the board under this section?

The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce can decide that they will give less?

Yes, or the Dáil in the last resort.

Will it appear as an ordinary Estimate?

All the details will not be before us, though.

In practice, the amount will be determined on the basis of a budget. The board will prepare its budget for the year and estimate for its expenditure with regard to these advances, and it will come and get approval of that estimate. If that estimate is approved by the Dáil, the board may be provided to the limit of that advance, but what we are providing here is that, under no circumstances, will the amount exceed that £45,000 in any one year.

But there is no question of general conduct being taken into account here or being under surveillance?

General conduct, yes, but in my opinion, the question of whether or not the board should have made a loan to a particular hotel or a particular body or association for local development would not arise properly here.

Yes, but I want to point out that there is a certain danger there, and I think there are cases in which that matter might properly arise. Roughly speaking, of this £45,000, £20,000 will go for the cost of administration, and therefore, anything that the board does comes before this House for discussion in any detail.

Well, take the case of the Turf Development Board. That is in precisely the same position. There is a provision in the annual Estimate for advances by that board. Of course, we could discuss, and in a few cases we have discussed, some of the matters of that kind relating to that board, but, in practice, we have not done so.

Yes, but I suggest that we are very much more likely to have that kind of thing in connection with this matter.

Yes, I agree that that is so.

I think it might be better to have some other method of providing the money here, because once the matter is discussed here in the House a great deal of the utility of the board in such cases will be nullified or, at least, hampered. If the board feels that anything it may do, as a business concern, or that its conduct generally, is liable, as it may be, to be the subject of detailed discussion, or even general discussion, in this House, the board will tend to behave as a Civil Service department and think less of developing as a business than of just carrying on. That is the danger that I foresee.

Yes, that is true, but I do not think there is any alternative. I think that our law and Constitution provide that moneys of that kind must be voted by the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: That Section 16 stand part of the Bill.

This section provides for advances to the board out of the Central Fund and for the repayment of such sums, with interest, as provided by later provisions of the Act, by the board to the Minister; but so far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill about the repayment to the board of this £600,000, or whether part of it may be advanced to hotel keepers or whatever other bodies the money may be advanced to, nor, it seems to me, is there any direction as to what the board will do with the money when it is repaid to them. Will they treat it as a capital fund, or in what way will they treat it? It seems to me that all these sections need overhauling in order to make these things clear. Surely, if the board receives a maximum of £600,000, and if it makes advances to certain bodies, any of the money that is repaid to the board should be put to capital account and not to revenue account. So far as I can see, however, there is nothing to prevent the board adding such repayments to their annual revenue.

I shall look into that matter, but so far as advances made by the board to hotel-keepers and other bodies of that kind are concerned, the provision for the repayment of these advances, and the manner in which they shall be repaid, will be determined by the agreement which the board will make with these people prior to making the advance. The board will make whatever terms it can or whatever terms it desires, and it will get these terms agreed to before advancing the money. Sub-section (3) of this section provides that sums advanced to the board shall be repayable with interest, and I should imagine that an arrangement would be made with the board for the establishment of some account which would be periodically cleared for the benefit of the Exchequer or for wiping out the board's liability for these advances. You have a similar thing in connection with the Electricity Supply Board. They have not repaid the capital, so far; in theory, it is being used for that purpose, but in practice it is being used for the purpose of financing fresh capital commitments.

Yes, but I do not think the same thing can be done here, because you are limited here.

Yes, you are limited to a certain extent.

If the Minister for Finance gives £600,000, he cannot give any more, and if a loan is given by the board to, let us say, a local authority, and that loan is paid back to the board, I presume that must be given back to the Exchequer?

And the Minister cannot give that sum back again?

No; not without fresh legislation. Of course if this thing should be developed, it is quite possible that, in some future years, another Minister may produce a Bill to amend this Bill by increasing that amount of £600,000, just as we have had to do in the case of half-a-dozen other Acts in connection with electricity supply, telephone and telegraph services. Each of these Acts fixed a maximum limit to the advances that could be made—whether for electricity, or telephone or telegraph service, or whatever the service might be—and that limit cannot be changed without fresh legislation; the idea being that the State must determine whether or not it will invest more money in the enterprise concerned. I do not suppose that we will get to the point of wanting to increase the amount concerned in this Bill for quite a considerable time to come, but the point might arise at some future time.

I suggest that, as the section stands at the moment, the board can get that £600,000 right off if they can produce schemes to justify it?

And there is no provision with regard to the repayment of advances to the board. Of course, they have to repay a certain amount to the board, but supposing that a surplus comes in, has that to be handed into the Exchequer? If they drew the £600,000 at once, I presume they are finished as regards drawing from the Exchequer, but if the repayments are greater than the amount they drew, or at a greater rate than the Minister anticipated, as they might easily be, what would be the position there?

Yes, of course, that might happen. They might even make a profit.

What would happen in that case?

If they make a profit they put it to their general purposes.

Yes, but what happens then?

If they got a repayment of capital in respect of which they had a liability to the Exchequer they could not lose that sum.

That is not provided here.

I do not think it is necessary to have it provided here. The question of the manner of the repayment will be between the board and the people to whom the advances are made.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) In this section the word "land" includes land covered with water and also includes easements, way-leaves, water-rights, fishing rights, sporting rights, and other rights over or in respect of any land or water.
(2) If and whenever the board thinks proper to acquire compulsorily any land for the purpose of the exercise of any of the powers or the performance of any of the duties or functions conferred or imposed on it by this Act, the board may by order declare its intention so to acquire such land and every such order shall operate to confer on the board full power to acquire compulsorily the land mentioned therein under and in accordance with this section.

I move amendment No. 15, standing in the name of Deputy Fionán Lynch:

In sub-section (1), line 59, to delete the words "fishing rights."

We put down this and the following amendment to delete the words "fishing rights" and "sporting rights."

The phrase in this amendment is "fishing rights."

Yes, but the purpose of the amendments is to remove the words "fishing rights" and "sporting rights" from the places or things that the word "land" may include under this Bill. As far as sporting rights are concerned I think the same argument would apply as for fishing rights. There is a general feeling of unrest amongst sporting people at the inclusion of sporting rights in this Bill. Sporting rights are generally associated with shooting rights. They constitute a very technical industry, if I may put it that way, and it is thought that they should not be brought within the ambit of a Bill of this type. We do not say that the State ought not, at some time, to take control of shooting rights. What applies to fishing might be done under a properly constituted board or department in the case of shooting and some good might come of it but that is another question. I believe that is in the offing. The possibility of doing something in connection with shooting rights has, I understand, been considered by various Ministries but we do not think that shooting rights should be brought within the framework of this Bill because it may lead to abuse. We do not know what the composition of the board will be, nor does the Minister at present know that. It is obvious that the majority of the board will be chosen because of their capacity to advance the tourist trade—to entice people from other countries to come here for their holidays and to entice people from one part of the country to go to another part of the country for their holidays. We do not think that the facilities offered to visitors should include the right of free shooting. If shooting is to be properly developed it must be properly protected and it would be necessary to put a great deal of effort into it in order to develop it properly. Something must eventually be done to put our shooting rights on a par with those of other countries but the board which it is proposed to set up under this Bill should not be given power compulsorily to acquire shooting rights. The Minister may say that there is no intention of doing that. We are sick of assurances like that from every Minister. It has been my experience in this House that most of the things which we were assured could not happen under legislation did happen. I do not want to see the board in this case come in and compulsorily acquire shooting rights for the purpose of offering them to tourists from other countries. Let these people by all means come in and take advantage of what nature supplies in the way of sport. We are all heartily glad to see them do so but, where private enterprise is attempting to develop shooting, the board should not be at liberty compulsorily to interfere. The same applies to fishing. That is, in part, covered by a Bill which is passing through the House but shooting rights are not covered by any such Bill and I do not think that there is any proposal to bring in legislation to cover them. People who approached me objected to the inclusion of sporting rights in this Bill.

I join with Deputy Bennett in opposing the inclusion of fishing rights and sporting rights in Section 19. I wonder if the Minister considered the general position with regard to these two items. As Deputy Bennett said, there is a Bill at present going through the House—we finished the Committee Stage only last week —dealing with fisheries. We had an undertaking that a Bill to consolidate the law would come afterwards. That is as regards fishing. As regards sporting rights other than fishing, we may take it that they are divided between the Minister for Lands, on the one hand, and private ownership, on the other hand. Here we are going to insert a power to take these rights compulsorily. I admit at once that, if you are going to do this at all, it would be useless to attempt it without compulsory powers but, in my opinion, the Bill should not touch this matter. Anybody who has been reared up with this question knows that, so far as visitors are concerned, no problem arises.

The question of partridge and pheasant shooting has, in this connection, no significance at all. You have grouse, snipe and woodcock to deal with. These are the three things that come under the heading of "sporting rights." Your sporting rights are, in the main, in the hands of small farmers. On an average, throughout the entire country, the moorland adjoining the tillage area would be about 50 acres. If the Government were to put up a capital sum of between £50,000 and £100,000 for the destruction of vermin, I should give the proposal my enthusiastic support. I should be much more impressed by that than by the proposal to give this board these powers. If these two things are to be put into the definition, the section would require to be redrafted. If you are to give these rights, it is vital that we should impose duties on the board, because if we do not impose duties on them, the last position will be worse than the first. They can, for the purpose of some hotel, compulsorily acquire sporting rights in an adjoining district. They can turn out a number of guns on the 12th August. A number of young people may come to the country for sport and some of them may never have shot a grouse over dogs. For the first two days, or, perhaps, for the whole time, they do not catch on to the covering of a bird rising before a dog. All the birds on the moor are wounded and, in that way, destroyed for breeding purposes although one of them may not be instantly killed. A number of them may die subsequently.

Look at all the ammunition they would use.

I know more about this than the Minister does. I have wasted some ammunition myself. I have seen hundreds of rounds of ammunition wasted in one day and not one bird coming down. A week afterwards you would get the birds lying dead. Nobody in this House can give an instance of where any trouble has arisen with regard to these small farmers accommodating the owner of a hotel and affording sporting and shoots facilities to the visitors to the hotel. The owner of the hotel enters into contracts with the small farmers as to what he will pay per head or per brace for the grouse.

There may be cases where large tracts of country are a sort of common waste and in the winter time it would be useful to have them for rough shooting, such as snipe shooting, but, in the main, my experience of it is that no question arises. If there is a hotel in the district the owner goes around and says to the farmers in that area that he will take these tracts for snipe shooting in the winter for his visitors. There is no trouble about that at all. My experience is that these small farmers get far better terms if they are left in the hands of the hotel proprietor.

Unless very rigid duties are imposed on the board with regard to the preserving of game they may well destroy these things for the small farmer who is now getting a reasonably good price —10/- to 14/- a brace. Fourteen shillings a brace is a very good price. During the winter the farmer would look after the destruction of sparrow-hawks, magpies, scaldcrows and whitebacks. The small farmer would do all that. It would not cost anybody anything. Unless those duties are imposed there is no use in giving the board this power. The moors of this country from north to south are infested with scaldcrows and whitebacks. There is general destruction by sparrow-hawks. It is calculated that a scaldcrow would destroy 300 grouse in one season. The number of scaldcrows in the country is beyond counting. Therefore, the destruction done by vermin in this country is enormous. At the same time, this Bill is introduced under which power is given to the board to take shooting and fishing rights.

I would rather see £100,000 of this money allocated to the destruction of vermin. That is one of the very first things you must do because there are going to be no visitors if there is no game or fishing. All our moors and shoots are destroyed with vermin. Nothing is done to put it down. If the Minister insists upon retaining that power I would suggest that he should impose conditions. I well appreciate that it would have to be left to the discretion of the board in the matter of sending a man over a particular shoot from the 1st to the 12th August and getting an approximate calculation of the number of birds on it and then to permit only a limited number to be shot off, leaving for the next season sufficient to stock it for the following season. In that matter you would have to rely on the discretion and judgment of the men or man that the board would send to do that. Over and above all that, the most important question with regard to sporting rights, as distinct from fishing rights—which was well looked after—is to put up a sum of money to destroy vermin throughout the country. The Land Commission are now taking over, in the main, all the monntains, either for the general purposes of the Land Acts or for afforestation. Whatever protection the old landlords gave through the gamekeepers is practically all gone. There is no destruction now of vermin. Neither the Land Commission nor the Forestry Department are destroying vermin. We have a Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and they are doing nothing.

I think the question of fishing rights and sporting rights should be entirely excluded from this section and should be dealt with in some other Bill or in the consolidating Bill referred to by the Minister in the Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill, which has passed through the House. There is a Department of Agriculture, a Department of Lands, the Tourist Traffic Board and private individuals all interested in this matter. Between all these stools the sporting rights are going to come to the ground. There is not a hope on earth for them.

Under the Ashbourne Act, the Wyndham Act, the Birrell Act, fishing and sporting rights were given to the tenantry. These were not given to them under the 1923 Act. In townlands of eight or twelve holdings some of the tenants hold under the Ashbourne Act, some under the Wyndham Act and others under the 1923 Act. The position in regard to sporting rights of those 12 tenants may be different. There can be nothing but chaos in such a situation. This matter should be taken up in some Bill, such as a Consolidating Bill in respect of the game laws and sporting rights, such as the Minister referred to in connection with the fishing rights. I do not like this section in the present Bill. I think it will only add further chaos to the present position of sporting rights in this country. In its present form it will not get us anywhere. If it is thought wise to insist upon putting it in this Bill I think it should be entirely redrafted. In that matter, any assistance I can give will be gladly given. I was called in on an occasion when this matter was being discussed by men who should have known this question very well. I was certainly not impressed by them. They had ideas about it, but everyone had a sectional idea of it. There should be a national idea in this matter. I say—but I do not mean it in any offensive way— that the sporting rights of landlords are gone, in the main. An entirely new condition of affairs has been created. The State that brought about that position has not done anything to look after the valuable national asset of which they took possession. Nothing whatever has been done. The Government has not paid for the destruction of one scaldcrow, one magpie and one whiteback. They took over this valuable national asset. In the general hurry, and as part of the political hysteria to get land and to get that land divided, this important asset was overlooked.

That is the position to-day with regard to sporting rights. You are proposing to confer on a body power to take over those sporting rights. In the main, they have nothing to take. You have got to start building them up, and that is going to be a bit of a problem. Irreparable damage has been done by vermin. That has been intensified by the afforestation scheme in places where forests are being planted in the middle of moors. These new forests are going to be a regular breeding ground for vermin. On the estimate of his Department each year. I have asked the Minister for Lands if he was going to have that matter attended to. I could never get an answer from him. He simply passed over my question when replying, and has never told me whether his Department was attending to the matter or not. So far as I know, the Department has not destroyed one head of vermin in these new forests. In view of that, we are simply wasting our time here arguing about this. We are wasting the taxpayer's money as well —the £600,000 and the £45,000 annually. We are voting that money with the object of attracting tourists. You can attract them all right, but if they come once, will they come again if they find that there is nothing for them to get?

Visitors are not going to come here simply for the purpose of seeing us. We are not better looking than any other race. I suppose we are not any worse looking either, but if we want to attract visitors to the country we must give them something more than that. It will not do to give them good hotels or offer them sporting facilities on paper. You must give them these facilities in fact. If a man comes here to fish, he is not going to trouble us again if he finds that there are no fish in our rivers. The same will apply to our shooting rights. If a man takes a "shoot," and puts his dogs over it and finds that there are no game there, he is not going to take that "shoot" again. That is the general position. There are, of course, exceptions. A lot of this trouble was caused by the desperate hurry to acquire and divide land. There was the cry to acquire land, and then a tug-o'-war followed with regard to the division of it. In this tug-o'-war the sporting rights were neglected.

I ask the Minister to delete these sporting and fishing rights from the section. Let the care of both be put in the hands of one Minister. It will be that Minister's duty to come to the House and ask for a substantial sum of money for the destruction of vermin all over this State, because vermin are to be found on land all over the country. They are to be found on George Bennett's hills in Limerick, as they are on the hills of Donegal. I have travelled over the moors in the County Limerick until the sweat poured off me. I have travelled over them with two dogs, and all we saw in two days were six grouse. What is proposed here is ridiculous. I think I have said enough to impress the Minister with the importance of what is at stake so far as this section is concerned.

I want to make it clear that Deputy McMenamin and Deputy Bennett are completely misinformed as to the intentions of the section. I am sorry I cannot promise them that this board is going to reorganise and develop our sporting facilities. Naturally, of course, the board will have an interest in their development. It will assist any organisation that may be concerned in the matter, but it is not going to undertake that work itself. Sub-section (1) of the section says that the word "land" includes "fishing rights, sporting rights and other rights over or in respect of any land or water." These words are put there to make it clear that if the board acquires land it can also acquire any rights that go with the land—"easements, way-leaves, water-rights, fishing rights"—and so on. We want to make it clear that the board can do that. We have the compulsory acquisition clause as well.

What does the Minister want those rights for now?

I am not saying that the board wants rights at all. What I have said is that if they acquire land they can acquire whatever rights go with the land. In the ordinary course, the board will acquire any land or rights which they want by negotiation and purchase. Experience, however, over a number of years has taught us that State organisation of this kind cannot acquire by voluntary agreement, by negotiation and purchase, on fair terms, property of any kind unless they have compulsory powers in the background which they can use. In practice, these compulsory powers are not availed of except in exceptional circumstances. There may be cases like the Shannon works or some other big undertaking in respect of which the use of compulsory powers would be essential, but, generally speaking, one may say that quite a number of Acts which contain a similar section to this are operated without recourse to the section, because the mere existence of these compulsory powers puts the board or organisation concerned in a position to bargain on fair terms. In the great majority of cases the bargain is concluded on the basis of a voluntary arrangement without recourse to the elaborate procedure laid down for compulsory acquisition.

The only point that arises on this section is whether we should give the board power to use these compulsory powers of their own volition. I have been considering that point since we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, and have come to the conclusion that it is undesirable that the board should have these compulsory powers and should be able to exercise them without reference to anybody. On the next Stage, I propose to introduce a provision requiring them to get the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce before they can use these compulsory powers. Deputies understand that the board can purchase property by negotiation voluntarily if they wish in connection with any approved project on which they may be engaged, but if they propose to use these compulsory powers I intend proposing that they will have to get the prior consent of the Minister before doing so. Again, I want to point out that I am doing that not because I think the judgment of the Minister is likely to be better than that of the board, but because he is a public officer and, therefore, must account for his conduct. In that way, the Dáil can question the giving of his assent.

What I want to make clear is that the section does not mean that we are going to set out upon a general acquisition of sporting rights all over the country—that we are going to reserve sporting rights for tourists, or do anything else with those sporting rights. We are not even undertaking to do what Deputy McMenamin wants done, that is to finance the development or improvement of those sporting rights. Another Department of Government may undertake that. Private associations and organisations already established for that purpose may be assisted by the Tourist Board to that end, but the board itself is not proposing to do so. If it acquires fishing or sporting rights, it will acquire them merely in connection with land acquired by it for some specific purpose.

That is the meaning of the section?

That is the meaning of the section.

And it does not extend beyond that?

We will amend the section by ensuring that the use of those compulsory powers will require prior Ministerial sanction.

There is one point on which I was not quite clear from listening to the Minister. Will the board acquire sporting and fishing rights where the land to which those sporting and fishing rights are attached are not taken over?

The board can do that, certainly.

It can do something like the following: The board will acquire land, for instance, for the building of a hotel. It will naturally acquire the fishing rights so far as all the land it gets is concerned, but it can also compulsorily acquire fishing rights in the neighbourhood, even though those rights attach to land which it does not take over?

It is not the intention that they should do so, except to this extent: in regard to fishing rights or other rights which they might desire to purchase, and which they found themselves in a difficulty about obtaining at a reasonable price, it might be necessary to use compulsory powers. Except to the extent that the use of compulsory powers is necessary in order to ensure that there will be a fair deal, I think they should not be used at all to acquire those rights, certainly not where those rights have been developed by their present proprietor. There will be cases, of course, where it might be held by everybody that the sporting rights or fishing rights in a particular area should be acquired by the board or somebody else for the purpose of development, and there will be no real opposition to it except on the part of some crank or other who is himself doing nothing about it, but who might refuse to sell, and against whom compulsory powers might have to be utilised. But where those rights have been developed by the present proprietor, where they were being looked after and good use made of them, I would be opposed to giving the board powers of compulsory acquisition at all. Certainly, I would prevent them from using those powers of compulsory acquisition other than in very exceptional circumstances. In the ordinary course, when they want rights of that kind they should go out and negotiate for them, and buy at fair value. The only case where compulsory powers might be used would be where fair value could not otherwise be obtained.

There is no justification for giving compulsory powers——

This section has been read to mean that we are proposing that the board should embark upon a campaign of acquiring sporting rights all over the place, and following some development plan in relation to them. It is not intended that the board should do that.

It is not a question of intention. It is a question of the legal power we are conferring on them.

We are conferring on the board legal power to acquire all those rights. In order to ensure that there will be no misunderstanding or difficulty in giving effect to what I have now said, I am proposing to amend the section so that Ministerial sanction will be required before those compulsory powers can be utilised. I think that will meet the point, having regard to the intention to which I have given expression.

The Minister's last reference to the restrictions he is going to put on compulsory acquisition will apply more to a subsequent amendment than to this particular one. The Minister has lost the point that perhaps Deputy McMenamin, in his enthusiasm for sporting development, has gone outside what was intended by the amendment. I do not at all propose that the board should undertake the development of shooting rights in this country. I say that there is necessity for the preservation of those rights, and their proper development as an asset to this country. I do not at all say that the present board should do that. I believe they are the last body to which that should be entrusted.

Well, the second last.

The second last, if you like to put it that way. I do believe that some time soon—the Minister rather hinted that some Government Department might help—we must have a development of shooting rights. Before that happens, I do not want the Tourist Board or any other board to acquire tracts of land that might be made a valuable asset to this country under proper development. I do not think it is desirable that they should get compulsory powers of acquisition of such land. It might be necessary that those powers should eventually be given to somebody, but certainly not to this board.

What I am proposing now is that we will ensure that the board cannot use those compulsory powers except in accordance with public policy. Public policy for the development of fishing, for example, is laid down in the Fishing Bill which was before the Dáil recently. Similar legislation in regard to other sporting facilities and rights may come at some stage, and this board will not act contrary to whatever may be determined as in the general national interest. In order to ensure that, we will keep Ministerial control over the exercise of those powers.

Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16, not moved.

I move amendment No. 17:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, line 7, after the word "Section" to add the following words "provided always that the board shall not compulsorily acquire any land greater in extent than one rood in any townland."

This, Sir, is a still more important amendment. It covers the whole question of the acquisition of land. Outside of any argument which we have put forward in regard to shooting rights, we must protest against this particular section as it stands. The board may acquire practically any land that they desire in the country. They may interfere with the rights of numerous private citizens. They may take land contiguous to a town, land of great value for building sites or anything else you like. In the last amendment I was concerned only with the words "sporting rights"; this amendment covers the whole question of the acquisition of land. The board may acquire land from any individual in any place in this State. There is only one exception. There was one particular board here which could acquire land, and that was the Land Commission. It was the only body which could take land compulsorily.

Not at all. There is a whole multitude of organisations with that power.

They were the one big body. This new grabbing body may not grab land from the Land Commission. They can grab it from anybody else.

They will have to pay for it.

Under a sub-section of this Bill the Land Commission are protected from the grabbing propensities of this particular body, but any other individual can and perhaps will have his land acquired. I say "perhaps." The Minister may mark the word. I do not say it is very probable, but perhaps they can acquire land anywhere, including land belonging to any member of this House. Practically no rights are given to the individual. There is no right of appeal if they propose to take such, land. The board, mind you, having acquired your land, may, if they wish, institute an inquiry. The people who seized land compulsorily may institute an inquiry, and the composition of the inquiry itself is rather vague. The Minister should appoint a fit and proper person, and such person is authorised to do various things, and it is not said to whom he is to report, or what the finality of his decision is going to be.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again as soon as item No. 5 on the Order Paper has been disposed of.
Top
Share